Transcription

1 GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees September 2008 HUMAN CAPITAL DOD Needs to Improve Implementation of and Address Concerns about Its National Security Personnel System GAO

2 September 2008 Accountability Integrity Reliability Highlights Highlights of GAO , a report to congressional committees HUMAN CAPITAL DOD Needs to Improve Implementation of and Address Concerns about Its National Security Personnel System Why GAO Did This Study The Department of Defense (DOD) has begun implementing the National Security Personnel System (NSPS), its new human capital system for managing civilian personnel performance. As of May 2008, about 182,000 civilian employees were under NSPS. DOD s implementation of NSPS will have far-reaching implications for DOD and civil service reform across the federal government. Based on our prior work looking at performance management in the public sector and DOD s challenges in implementing NSPS, GAO developed an initial list of safeguards that NSPS should include to ensure it is fair, effective, and credible. Congress required GAO to determine (1) the extent to which DOD has implemented internal safeguards to ensure the fairness, effectiveness, and credibility of NSPS; and (2) how DOD civilian personnel perceive NSPS and what actions DOD has taken to address these perceptions. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed relevant documents and employee survey results; interviewed appropriate officials; and conducted discussion groups with employees and supervisors at 12 selected installations. What GAO Recommends GAO is recommending that DOD improve the implementation of some safeguards and develop and implement an action plan to address employee concerns about NSPS. DOD generally concurred with our recommendations, with the exception of one requiring predecisional review of ratings. To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on GAO For more information, contact Brenda S. Farrell at (202) or What GAO Found While DOD has taken some steps to implement internal safeguards to ensure that NSPS is fair, effective, and credible, the implementation of some safeguards could be improved. Specifically, DOD has taken steps to (1) involve employees in the system s design and implementation, (2) link employee objectives and agency goals, (3) train employees on the system s operation, (4) require ongoing performance feedback between supervisors and employees, (5) better link individual pay to performance, (6) allocate agency resources for the system, (7) include predecisional safeguards to determine if rating results are fair and nondiscriminatory, (8) provide reasonable transparency, and (9) provide meaningful distinctions in employee performance. GAO believes continued monitoring of all of these safeguards is needed to ensure that DOD s actions are effective as more employees become covered by NSPS. GAO also determined that DOD could immediately improve its implementation of three safeguards. First, DOD does not require a third party to analyze rating results for anomalies prior to finalizing employee ratings, and therefore it is unable to determine whether ratings are fair and nondiscriminatory before they are finalized. Second, the process lacks transparency because DOD does not require commands to publish final rating distributions, though doing so is recognized as a best practice by DOD and GAO. Third, NSPS guidance may discourage rating officials from making meaningful distinctions in employee ratings because it indicated that the majority of employees should be rated at the 3 level, on a scale of 1 to 5, resulting in a hesitancy to award ratings in other categories. Without steps to improve implementation of these safeguards, employee confidence in the system will ultimately be undermined. Although DOD employees under NSPS are positive regarding some aspects of performance management, DOD does not have an action plan to address the generally negative employee perceptions of NSPS. According to DOD s survey of civilian employees, employees under NSPS are positive about some aspects of performance management, such as connecting pay to performance. However, employees who had the most experience under NSPS showed a negative movement in their perceptions. For example, the percent of NSPS employees who believe that NSPS will have a positive effect on DOD s personnel practices declined from 40 percent in 2006 to 23 percent in Negative perceptions also emerged during discussion groups that GAO held. For example, employees and supervisors were concerned about the excessive amount of time required to navigate the process. Although the Office of Personnel Management issued guidance recommending that agencies use employee survey results to provide feedback to employees and implement an action plan to guide their efforts to address employee assessments, DOD has not developed an action plan to address employee perceptions. While it is reasonable for DOD to allow employees some time to accept NSPS because organizational changes often require time to adjust, it is prudent to address persistent negative employee perceptions. Without such a plan, DOD is unable to make changes that could result in greater employee acceptance of NSPS. United States Government Accountability Office

4 Tables Table 1: Number of DOD Civilian s Phased into NSPS, as of May Table 2: Percentage of s in Each Rating Category by DOD and Pay Pools Visited 28 Table 3: Estimated Percentage of Responses from Status of Forces Survey for DOD Civilian s, May Table 4: Estimated Percentage of Spiral 1.1 s Responses for Select Questions from the May 2007, November 2006, and May 2006 Administrations of the Status of Forces Survey for DOD Civilian s 33 Table 5: Composition of Discussion Groups 57 Table 6: Composition of Discussion Groups by Demographic Category per Component 59 Table 7: Estimated Percentage of s Responding to Questions about Overall Satisfaction and Leadership and Management in May 2007 Status of Forces Survey-Civilian 62 Table 8: Estimated Percentage of s Responding to Questions about Leadership and Management, Motivation/Development/Involvement, and Performance Management in May 2007 Status of Forces Survey-Civilian 63 Table 9: Estimated Percentage of s Responding to Question about Performance Management in May 2007 Status of Forces Survey-Civilian 64 Table 10: Estimated Percentage of s Responding to Question about Performance Management in May 2007 Status of Forces Survey-Civilian 64 Table 11: Estimated Percentage of s Responding to Questions about Retention and Commitment in May 2007 Status of Forces Survey-Civilian 65 Table 12: Estimated Percentage of s Responding to Questions about the National Security Personnel System in May 2007 Status of Forces Survey-Civilian 65 Table 13: Estimated Percentage of s Responding to Questions about the National Security Personnel System in May 2007 Status of Forces Survey-Civilian 66 Table 14: Additional Themes that Emerged during Discussion Groups with Select s 67 Page ii

5 Figures Figure 1: NSPS Design and Implementation Team Organization 10 Figure 2: Phases of NSPS Performance Management Process 12 Figure 3: Example of NSPS Pay Pool Organization 13 Figure 4: Example of Linking Performance to Mission and Objectives 61 Abbreviations DOD NSPS SOFS PEO PAA DMDC Department of Defense National Security Personnel System Status of Forces Survey Program Executive Office Performance Appraisal Application Defense Manpower Data Center This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately. Page iii

6 United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC September 10, 2008 Congressional Committees In 2007, we reported that strategic human capital management remained a high-risk area because the federal government now faces one of the most significant transformations to the civil service in half a century, as momentum grows toward making governmentwide changes to agency pay, classification, and performance management systems. 1 The Department of Defense (DOD) is in the initial stages of implementing its new human capital system for managing civilian personnel the National Security Personnel System (NSPS). NSPS significantly redesigned the rules, regulations, and processes that govern the way that civilian employees are hired, compensated, and promoted at DOD. As a result, DOD is in a period of transition and faces an array of challenges and opportunities to enhance performance, ensure accountability, and position itself for the future. In a series of testimonies prior to the enactment of the NSPS legislation in 2003, we raised a number of critical issues about the proposed regulations for NSPS. 2 Since then, we have provided congressional committees with insight on DOD s process to design its new personnel management system, the extent to which DOD s process reflects key practices for successful transformation, the need for internal controls and transparency of funding, and the most significant challenges facing DOD in implementing NSPS. 3 1 GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO (Washington, D.C.: January 2007). In 2001, we designated strategic human capital management as a high-risk area because of the federal government's long-standing lack of a consistent strategic approach to marshaling, managing, and maintaining the human capital needed to maximize government performance and ensure its accountability. GAO, High-Risk Series: An Update, GAO (Washington, D.C.: January 2001). 2 GAO, Defense Transformation: Preliminary Observations on DOD s Proposed Civilian Personnel Reforms, GAO T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 29, 2003); Defense Transformation: DOD s Proposed Civilian Personnel Systems and Governmentwide Human Capital Reform, GAO T (Washington, D.C.: May 1, 2003); and Human Capital: Building on DOD s Reform Efforts to Foster Governmentwide Improvements, GAO T (Washington, D.C.: June 4, 2003). See Related GAO Products at the end of this report for additional reports we have issued related to NSPS and performance management in the federal government. 3 GAO, Human Capital: DOD Needs Better Internal Controls and Visibility Over Costs for Implementing Its National Security Personnel System, GAO (Washington, D.C.: July 16, 2007) and Human Capital: Observations on Final Regulations for DOD s National Security Personnel System, GAO T (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 17, 2006). Page 1

7 While GAO supports human capital reform in the federal government, how such reform is done, when it is done, and the basis upon which it is done can make all the difference in whether such efforts are successful. Specifically, we have noted in testimonies and reports that DOD and other federal agencies must ensure that performance management systems contain appropriate internal safeguards, such as assuring reasonable transparency in connection with the results of the performance management process. We developed an initial list of safeguards based on our extensive body of work looking at the performance management practices used by leading public sector organizations both in the United States and in other countries as well as on our experiences in implementing a modern performance management system for our own staff at GAO. 4 Implementing internal safeguards is a way to ensure that pay-for-performance systems in the government are fair, effective, and credible. 5 Additionally, we reported that the implementation of NSPS will have far-reaching implications, not just for DOD, but for civil service reform across the federal government because NSPS could serve as a model for governmentwide transformation in human capital. In light of these challenges and implications, in March 2007 the Senate Armed Services Committee asked us to review the implementation of the NSPS performance management system to determine the extent to which DOD has effectively incorporated internal safeguards that we had previously identified as key to successful implementation of performance management systems in the federal government and assess employee attitudes toward NSPS. Further, the National Defense Authorization 4 GAO, Results Oriented Cultures: Creating a Clear Linkage between Individual Performance and Organizational Success, GAO (Washington, D.C.: Mar.14, 2003). 5 GAO, Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the Department of Defense s National Security Personnel System (NSPS), GAO R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2006). Page 2

8 Act for Fiscal Year required us to determine the extent to which DOD has effectively incorporated accountability mechanisms and internal safeguards in NSPS and to assess employee attitudes toward NSPS. We assessed the extent to which DOD s performance management system has incorporated the following safeguards: 7 Involve employees, their representatives, and other stakeholders in the design of the system, to include employees directly involved in validating any related implementation of the system. Assure that the agency s performance management system links employee objectives to the agency s strategic plan, related goals, and desired outcomes. Implement a pay-for-performance evaluation system to better link individual pay to performance, and provide an equitable method for appraising and compensating employees. Provide adequate training and retraining for supervisors, managers, and employees in the implementation and operation of the performance management system. Institute a process for ensuring ongoing performance feedback and dialogue between supervisors, managers, and employees throughout the appraisal period, and setting timetables for review. Assure that certain predecisional internal safeguards exist to help achieve consistency, equity, nondiscrimination, and nonpoliticization of the performance management process (e.g., independent reasonableness reviews by a third party or reviews of performance 6 Pub. L. No , 1106(c) (2008). Specifically, section 1106(c)(1)(B) directs GAO to conduct reviews in calendar years to evaluate the extent to which the Department of Defense has effectively implemented accountability mechanisms, including those established in 5 U.S.C. 9902(b)(7) and other internal safeguards. The accountability mechanisms specified in 5 U.S.C. 9902(b)(7) include those that GAO previously identified as internal safeguards key to successful implementation of performance management systems. For example see GAO, Post-Hearing Questions for the Record Related to the Department of Defense s National Security Personnel System (NSPS), GAO R (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 24, 2006). GAO has emphasized the need for internal safeguards since DOD first proposed NSPS. For example see GAO, Posthearing Questions Related to Strategic Human Capital Management, GAO R (Washington, D.C.: May 22, 2003). 7 For the purpose of this report, we define safeguards to include accountability mechanisms. Page 3

9 rating decisions, pay determinations, and promotions before they are finalized to ensure that they are merit-based, as well as pay panels who consider the results of the performance appraisal process and other information in connection with final pay decisions). Assure that there are reasonable transparency and appropriate accountability mechanisms in connection with the results of the performance management process, including periodic reports on internal assessments and employee survey results relating to performance management and individual pay decisions while protecting individual confidentiality. Assure that the agency s performance management system results in meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance. Provide a means for ensuring that adequate agency resources are allocated for the design, implementation, and administration of the performance management system. To address this congressional request and mandate, we established the following objectives: (1) To what extent has DOD implemented accountability mechanisms and internal safeguards to ensure the fairness, effectiveness, and credibility of NSPS; and (2) How do DOD civilian personnel perceive NSPS and what actions has DOD taken to address these perceptions? To determine the extent to which DOD had implemented safeguards to ensure the fairness, effectiveness, and credibility of NSPS, we identified safeguards specified in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008, as well as other safeguards GAO has previously identified as key internal safeguards, and analyzed regulations and other guidance provided by officials in DOD and the four components headquarters the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Fourth Estate. 8 We also reviewed documents, such as pay pool business rules and regulations obtained during 12 site visits 3 for each component to military installations. Further, we interviewed appropriate agency officials at various levels within DOD and 8 The Department of the Navy s NSPS policies encompass Marine Corps civilians. The Fourth Estate includes all organizational entities in DOD that are not in the military departments or the combatant commands, for example, the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Office of the DOD Inspector General, the defense agencies, and DOD field activities. Page 4

10 conducted interviews with officials of various management levels at each site we visited. The sites were selected because they contained a large number or concentrated group of civilian employees that had been placed under NSPS and were geographically distributed throughout the United States. In addition, to determine how DOD civilian employees perceive NSPS, we analyzed the results of DOD s May 2006, November 2006, and May 2007 Status of Forces Survey (SOFS) of civilian employees. These surveys gauge initial employee attitudes toward NSPS and in our analysis, we begin to identify trends. 9 Further, we assessed DOD s survey methodology and found that DOD s surveys of DOD civilians were generally conducted in accordance with standard research practices; however, there were some areas that could be improved. We also conducted small group discussions with employees and supervisors at each of the 12 sites we visited. While the information from our discussion groups is not generalizable to the entire population of DOD civilians, it provides valuable insight into civilians perceptions about the implementation of NSPS. For more information about our scope and methodology, see appendix I. We conducted this performance audit from August 2007 to July 2008 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Results in Brief While DOD has taken some steps to implement internal safeguards to ensure that the NSPS performance management system is fair, effective, and credible, the implementation of some of these safeguards could be improved. Specifically, DOD has taken some steps to (1) involve 9 SOFS is a series of Web-based surveys of the total force that allows DOD to (1) evaluate existing programs/policies, (2) establish baselines before implementing new programs/policies, and (3) monitor progress of programs/policies and their effects on the total force. Since 2003, the Defense Manpower Data Center has administered the SOFS for civilian personnel on a semiannual basis. SOFS for civilian employees includes questions about compensation, performance, and personnel processes. Regular administrations every 6 months occurred between October 2004 and November 2006, and annual administrations commenced in All surveys include outcome or "leading indicator" measures such as overall satisfaction, retention intention, and perceived readiness, as well as demographic items needed to classify individuals into various subpopulations. In 2004, DOD added questions to SOFS for civilian employees pertaining specifically to NSPS. These surveys also include items for the annual reporting requirement under the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year Page 5

11 employees in the system s design and implementation; (2) link employee objectives and the agency s strategic goals and mission; (3) train and retrain employees in the system s operation; (4) provide ongoing performance feedback between supervisors and employees; (5) better link individual pay to performance in an equitable manner; (6) allocate agency resources for the system s design, implementation, and administration; (7) include predecisional internal safeguards to determine whether rating results are consistent, equitable, and nondiscriminatory; (8) provide reasonable transparency of the system and its operation; and (9) impart meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance. For example, all 12 sites we visited trained employees on NSPS, and the DODwide tool used to compose self-assessments links employees objectives to the commands or agencies strategic goals and mission. We believe continued monitoring of all of these safeguards is needed to ensure that DOD s actions are effective as implementation proceeds and more employees become covered by NSPS. We also determined that DOD could immediately improve its implementation of three safeguards: predecisional internal safeguards, reasonable transparency, and meaningful distinctions in employee performance. First, DOD is unable to determine whether NSPS rating results are nondiscriminatory before they are finalized because it does not require a third party to analyze the predecisional rating results for anomalies. According to Program Executive Office (PEO) officials, DOD does not require a predecisional analysis because of concerns that pay pool panels might adjust their results even if assessments did not warrant changes. PEO officials also stated that DOD s analysis of final results by demographics is sufficient to ensure fairness and nondiscrimination. Second, employees at some installations do not have transparency over the final results of the performance management process because DOD does not require commands to publish rating distributions for employees. In fact, 3 of the sites we visited decided not to publish the overall final rating and share distribution results. Third, NSPS performance management guidance may discourage rating officials from making meaningful distinctions in employee performance because this guidance emphasized that most employees should be evaluated as a 3 (or valued performer ) on a scale of 1 to 5. According to NSPS implementing issuance, rating results should be based on how well employees complete their job objectives using the performance indicators. Although DOD and most of the installations we visited emphasized that there was not a forced distribution of ratings, some pay pool panel members acknowledged that there was a hesitancy to award employee ratings in categories other than 3. Until DOD effectively implements these three safeguards, employees will not have assurance that NSPS is fair, equitable, and credible, which ultimately could Page 6

12 undermine employees confidence and result in failure of the system. We are recommending that DOD improve the implementation of these three safeguards by (1) requiring a third party to perform predecisional demographic and other analysis as appropriate for pay pools, (2) requiring overall final rating results to be published, and (3) encouraging pay pools and supervisors to use all categories of ratings as appropriate. In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with our recommendation to require overall final rating results to be published and partially concurred with our recommendation to encourage pay pools and supervisors to use all categories of ratings as appropriate. DOD did not concur with our recommendation to require a third party to perform predecisional demographic analysis as appropriate for pay pools, noting, among other things, that postdecisional analysis of results is more useful to identify barriers and corrective actions. We, however, continue to believe that our recommendation has merit and that identifying an anomaly in the ratings prior to finalizing them would allow management to investigate the situation and determine whether any non-merit-based factors contributed to the anomaly. Although DOD employees under NSPS are positive regarding some aspects of the NSPS performance management system, DOD does not have an action plan to address the generally negative employee perceptions of NSPS identified in both the department s SOFS for civilian employees and discussion groups we held at 12 select installations. According to our analysis of DOD s most recent survey from May 2007, NSPS employees expressed slightly more positive attitudes than their DOD colleagues who remain under the General Schedule system about some goals of performance management, such as connecting pay to performance and receiving feedback regularly. For example, an estimated 43 percent of NSPS employees compared to an estimated 25 percent of all other DOD employees said that pay raises depend on how well employees perform their jobs. 10 However, responses from NSPS employees with the most experience under NSPS showed a downward movement in their attitude toward other elements of the system. For example, the estimated percentage of employees who agreed that their performance appraisal was a fair reflection of their performance declined from 67 percent in May 2006 to 52 percent May In addition, the percent of NSPS employees who 10 These estimated percentages are based on a 95 percent confidence interval and margin of error within +/-2 percent as reported in DOD s Defense Manpower and Data Center s SOFS of civilian employees. Page 7

13 believe that NSPS will have a positive effect on DOD s personnel practices dropped from 40 percent in May 2006 to 23 percent in Our focus group meetings gave rise to views consistent with DOD s survey results. While some civilian employees and supervisors under NSPS seemed optimistic about the intent of the system, most of the DOD employees and supervisors we spoke with expressed a consistent set of wide-ranging concerns. Specifically, employees noted: (1) NSPS s negative impact on employee motivation and morale, (2) the excessive amount of time and effort required to navigate the performance management process, (3) the potential influence that employees and supervisors writing skills have on panels assessments of employee ratings, (4) the lack of transparency and understanding of the pay pool panel process, and (5) the rapid pace at which the system was implemented, which often resulted in employees feeling unprepared and unable to find answers to their questions. These negative attitudes are not surprising given that organizational transformations often entail fundamental and radical change that require an adjustment period to gain employee acceptance and trust. To address employee attitudes and acceptance, the Office of Personnel Management issued guidance that recommends and we believe it is a best practice that agencies use employee survey results to provide feedback to employees and develop and implement an action plan that guides their efforts to address the results of employee assessments. However, according to PEO officials, DOD has not developed a specific action plan to address critical issues identified by employee perceptions, because they want employees to have more time under the system before making changes. Without such a plan, DOD is unable to make changes that address employee perceptions that could result in greater employee acceptance and, ultimately, the successful implementation of the performance management system. We are recommending that DOD develop and implement a specific action plan to address employee perceptions of NSPS ascertained from DOD s surveys and employee focus groups. The plan should include actions to mitigate employee concerns about, for example, the potential influence that employees and supervisors writing skills have on the panels assessment of employee ratings or other issues consistently identified by employees or supervisors. DOD partially concurred with our recommendation, noting that it will address areas of weakness identified in its comprehensive, in progress evaluation of NSPS and is institutionalizing a continuous improvement strategy. Page 8

14 Background The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2004 provided DOD with the authority to establish a pay-for-performance management system as part of NSPS. 11 DOD established a team to design and implement NSPS and manage the transformation process. In April 2004, the Secretary of Defense appointed an NSPS Senior Executive to, among other things, design, develop, and implement NSPS. Under the Senior Executive s authority, the Program Executive Office (PEO) was established as the central policy and program office for NSPS. The PEO s responsibilities includes designing the human resource/pay-for-performance systems, developing communication and training strategies, modifying personnel information technology, and preparing joint enabling regulations and internal DOD implementing regulations. As the central DOD-wide program office, the PEO directs and oversees the components NSPS program managers, who report to their parent components and the NSPS PEO. These program managers also serve as their components NSPS action officers and participate in the development, planning, implementation, and deployment of NSPS. Figure 1 shows the organization of the NSPS design and implementation team. 11 Pub. L. No , 1101 (2003) (codified at 5 U.S.C ). The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 amended 5 U.S.C Pub. L. No , 1106 (2008). Page 9

15 Figure 1: NSPS Design and Implementation Team Organization Senior Executive Overarching Integrated Product Team Deputy PEO Program Executive Officer (PEO) Chief of Staff Army Program Management Office Senior Advisory Group Air Force Program Management Office Department of the Navy Program Management Office a Director, Human Resources Systems Director, Labor Relations and Appeals Washington Headquarters Service Program Management Office b Deputy Deputy Training Implementation and deployment Program evaluation Legislative and public affairs Legal Budget and financial management Human Resources Information Systems Source: DOD. Direct reporting authority Indirect reporting authority a Includes the U.S. Navy and the U.S. Marine Corps. b The Washington Headquarters Services is a field activity that reports to the Director of Administration and Management, which has oversight responsibility for DOD s Fourth Estate entities. The Fourth Estate encompasses those organizational entities in DOD that are not in the military departments or the combatant commands. These include the Office of the Secretary of Defense, the Joint Staff, the Office of the Inspector General of DOD, the defense agencies, and DOD field activities. Page 10

16 Table 1 shows DOD has phased (or spiraled) in over 182,000 civilian employees into NSPS as of May Subsequently, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 prohibited the Secretary of Defense from converting more than 100,000 employees to NSPS in any calendar year. In response to this and other legislative changes that resulted in revising NSPS regulations, the PEO has not developed a new timeline for phasing in the remaining approximately 273,000 employees. 13 Table 1: Number of DOD Civilian s Phased into NSPS, as of May 2008 Spiral Number of employees , , , , ,438 s not associated with a particular spiral 763 Total number of employees 182,630 Source: GAO analysis of DOD data. Note: s not associated with a particular spiral or conversion group are employees who are currently under NSPS, but whose positions were not coded to show the spiral. The performance management process of NSPS is ongoing and consists of several phases that are repeated in each annual performance cycle, as shown in figure 2. The planning phase that starts the cycle involves supervisors (or rating officials) and employees working together to establish performance plans. This includes (1) developing job objectives the critical work employees perform that is aligned with their organizational goals and focused on results and (2) identifying contributing factors the attributes and behaviors that identify how the critical work established in the job objectives is going to be accomplished 12 DOD has not applied NSPS to the Senior Executive Service because the latter s members are under a separate governmentwide pay-for-performance system. Additionally, DOD has not applied NSPS to the DOD intelligence components, which include the Defense Intelligence Agency, because these components are initiating implementation of a performance management system called the Defense Civilian Intelligence Personnel System (DCIPS). See 10 U.S.C According to PEO officials, DOD originally planned to convert approximately 700,000 civilian employees to NSPS; however, recent legislative changes decreased the total number of eligible civilians to approximately 450,000. Page 11

17 (e.g., cooperation and teamwork). After the planning phase comes the monitoring and developing phase, during which ongoing communication between supervisors and employees occurs to ensure that work is accomplished; attention is given to areas that need to be addressed; and managers, supervisors, and employees have a continued and shared understanding of expectations and results. In the rating phase, the supervisor prepares a written assessment that captures the employee s accomplishments during the appraisal period. In the final or reward phase, employees should be appropriately rewarded or compensated for their performance with performance payouts. During this phase, employee assessments are reviewed by multiple parties to determine employees ratings and, ultimately, performance payouts. Figure 2: Phases of NSPS Performance Management Process Plan Monitor Reward Rate Develop Source: GAO rendering of DOD data. The performance management process under NSPS is organized by pay pools. A pay pool is a group of employees who share in the distribution of a common pay-for-performance fund. 14 The key parties that make up pay pools are the employee, supervisor, higher-level rating authority, pay pool 14 Criteria to distinguish pay pools may include, but are not limited to, organization structure, employee job function, location, and organization mission. Page 12

18 panel, pay pool manager, performance review authority, and, in some instances, the sub-pay pool 15 as shown in figure 3. Figure 3: Example of NSPS Pay Pool Organization Performance review authority (PRA) Pay pool manager Pay pool panel member Pay pool panel member (sub-pay pool manager) Sub-pay pool Rating official Rating official Rating official (sub-pay pool panel member) Rating official (sub-pay pool panel member) Rating official (sub-pay pool panel member) Source: DOD. 15 Where determined appropriate due to the size of the pay pool population, the complexity of the mission, the need to prevent conflicts of interest, or other similar criteria, sub-pay pool panels may be organized in a structure subordinate to the pay pool panel. Sub-pay pool panels normally operate under the same requirements and guidelines provided to the pay pool panel to which they belong. Page 13

19 Each of these groups has defined responsibilities under the performance management process. For example, employees are encouraged to be involved throughout the performance management cycle, including: initially working with their supervisors to develop job objectives and identify associated contributing factors; identifying and recording accomplishments and results throughout the appraisal period; and participating in interim reviews and end-of-year assessments, for example by preparing self-assessments. Supervisors (or rating officials) are responsible for effectively managing the performance of their employees. This includes: clearly communicating performance expectations; aligning performance expectations and employee development with organization mission and goals; working with employees to develop written job objectives reflective of expected accomplishments and contributions for the appraisal period and identifying applicable contributing factors; providing employees meaningful, constructive, and candid feedback relative to performance expectations, including at least one documented interim review; making meaningful distinctions among employees based on performance and contribution; and providing recommended ratings of record, share assignments, and payout distributions to the pay pool. The higher level reviewer, typically the rating official's supervisor, is responsible for reviewing and approving job objectives and recommended employee assessments. The higher level reviewer is the first step in assuring consistency of ratings, because this individual looks across multiple ratings. The next level of review is with the pay pool panel or, in some cases, the sub-pay pool panel. The pay pool panel is a board of management officials who are usually in positions of line authority or in senior staff positions with resource oversight for the organizations, groups, or categories of employees comprising the pay pool membership Pay pool panel members may not participate in payout deliberations or decisions that directly impact their own performance assessment or pay. Page 14

20 The primary function of the pay pool panel is the reconciliation of ratings of record, share distribution, and payout allocation decisions. Each pay pool has a manager who is responsible for providing oversight of the pay pool panel. The pay pool manager is the final approving official of the rating of record. Performance payout determinations may be subject to higher management review by the performance review authority 17 or equivalent review process. The performance review authority provides oversight of several pay pools, and addresses the consistency of performance management policies within a component, major command, field activity, or other organization as determined by the component. DOD Has Taken Steps to Implement Internal Safeguards to Ensure Fairness of NSPS; However, Implementation of Some Safeguards Could Be Improved Although DOD has taken some steps to implement internal safeguards to ensure that the NSPS performance management system is fair, effective, and credible, implementation of some safeguards could be improved. Specifically, DOD has taken some steps to implement the safeguards identified in the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2008 as well as safeguards GAO previously identified. These safeguards include: (1) involving employees in the design and implementation of the system; (2) linking employee objectives and the agency s strategic goals and mission; (3) training and retraining employees and supervisors in the system s operation; (4) requiring ongoing performance feedback between supervisors and employees; (5) providing a system to better link individual pay to performance in an equitable manner; (6) allocating agency resources for the design, implementation, and administration of the system; (7) including predecisional internal safeguards to determine whether rating results are consistent, equitable, and nondiscriminatory; (8) providing reasonable transparency of the system and its operation; and (9) assuring meaningful distinctions in individual employee performance. GAO has previously reported that agencies should continually perform management controls, such as monitoring of programs. 18 We further reported that agencies can conduct this ongoing monitoring internally or through separate evaluations that are performed by the agency Inspector General or an external auditor, such as GAO. While we believe continued 17 The senior organization official, usually a member of the Senior Executive Service or a General/Flag officer, serves as the Performance Review Authority (PRA). DOD components may provide additional guidance for the establishment of PRAs. The responsibilities of the PRA may be assigned to an individual management official or organizational unit or group. 18 GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, GAO/AIMD (Washington, D.C.: November 1999). Page 15

United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548 May 19, 2003 The Honorable Jo Ann Davis Chairwoman Subcommittee on Civil Service and Agency Organization Committee on Government Reform House

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees April 2012 MILITARY EDUCATION Improved Oversight and Management Needed for DOD s Fellowship and Training-with-Industry

Report to Congress: Department of Defense Progress on Design and Implementation of the New DoD Personnel Management System and Appointment Procedures As Authorized by Section 9902(a) and (b) of Title 5,

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters July 2013 VA HEALTH CARE Actions Needed to Improve Administration of the Provider Performance Pay and Award Systems GAO-13-536

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the Secretary of Labor March 2011 PRIVATE HEALTH INSURANCE Data on Application and Coverage Denials

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m., EDT on Thursday May 18, 2000 United States General Accounting Office Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Mangement, Restructuring,

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees July 2015 DOD BUSINESS SYSTEMS MODERNIZATION Additional Action Needed to Achieve Intended Outcomes GAO-15-627 July 2015

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate December 2011 DEFENSE CONTRACT AUDITS Actions Needed to Improve DCAA's Access to and Use of Defense

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters May 2015 WHISTLEBLOWER PROTECTION DOD Needs to Enhance Oversight of Military Whistleblower Reprisal Investigations GAO-15-477

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters January 2015 FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION Improved Tracking of Results Needed to Provide Confidence in Benefits of Streamlining

United States Government Accountability Office Washington, DC 20548 March 14, 2013 The Honorable Carl Levin Chairman The Honorable James N. Inhofe Ranking Member Committee on Armed Services United States

GAO November 2009 United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the District of Columbia, Committee on Homeland

August 2014 United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees March 2015 DEFENSE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY Further DOD and DOE Actions Needed to Provide Timely Conference Decisions and

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees May 2016 DOD ADVERTISING Better Coordination, Performance Measurement, and Oversight Needed to Help Meet Recruitment Goals

GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Requesters July 2002 PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS IRS s Systems for Frontline Employees and Managers Align with Strategic Goals but

Interim Performance Management System for Positions Transitioning to the GS from NSPS Department of the Navy Handbook Version 2.0 September 2010 Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 3 BACKGROUND 3 WHO IS COVERED?

United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate May 2015 INFORMATION MANAGEMENT Additional Actions Are Needed to Meet Requirements

Department of Defense INSTRUCTION NUMBER 5545.04 April 7, 2011 USD(P&R) SUBJECT: Policy on the Congressional Reporting Process for Military Educational Institutions Seeking to Establish, Modify, or Redesignate

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters November 2006 VA HEALTH CARE Spending for Mental Health Strategic Plan Initiatives Was Substantially Less Than Planned

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters September 2012 PREVENTION AND PUBLIC HEALTH FUND Activities Funded in Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 To access this report

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to November 2010 HEALTH INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DOD Needs to Provide More Information on Risks to Improve Its Program Management GAO-11-148 November

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters October 2012 INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY DASHBOARD Opportunities Exist to Improve Transparency and Oversight of Investment

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 1403.03 October 25, 2007 USD(P&R) SUBJECT: The Career Lifecycle Management of the Senior Executive Service Leaders Within the Department of Defense References: (a)

Department of Defense DIRECTIVE NUMBER 5105.77 October 30, 2015 DCMO SUBJECT: National Guard Bureau (NGB) References: See Enclosure 1 1. PURPOSE. Pursuant to the authority vested in the Secretary of Defense

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL July 23, 2013 AUDIT SERVICES Control Number ED-OIG/A09L0001 James W. Runcie Chief Operating Officer Federal Student Aid U.S. Department

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters April 2012 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY Workforce Planning and Training Could Be Enhanced by Incorporating Strategic

GAO For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT on Tuesday May 2, 2000 United States General Accounting Office Testimony Before the Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring,

GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, U.S. Senate May 2003 SPECIAL EDUCATION Clearer Guidance Would Enhance

GAO May 2008 United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security, Committee on

Statement of Mr. Paul A. Brinkley Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Business Transformation Before THE UNITED STATES SENATE ARMED SERVICES COMMITTEE (SUBCOMMITTEE ON READINESS AND MANAGEMENT SUPPORT)

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees April 2012 ELECTRONIC HEALTH RECORDS First Year of CMS s Incentive Programs Shows Opportunities to Improve Processes

United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate June 2016 CASUALTY ASSISTANCE DOD and the Coast Guard Need to Develop Policies and Outreach Goals and

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees September 2009 MILITARY AIRLIFT DOD Should Take Steps to Strengthen Management of the Civil Reserve Air Fleet Program

GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to Congressional Committees January 2004 ARCHITECT OF THE CAPITOL Status Report on Implementation of Management Review Recommendations a GAO-04-299 January

Support Services Evaluation Handbook for members of Paraprofessionals and School-Related Personnel (PRSP), Baltimore Teachers Union, Local 340 City Union of Baltimore (CUB), Local 800 Baltimore City Public

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate July 2010 DEFENSE ACQUISITIONS DOD Needs to Develop Performance Criteria to Gauge Impact of Reform

United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Subcommittee on Financial and Contracting Oversight, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S. Senate October 2014 MARKET

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate July 2011 AIR FORCE WORKING CAPITAL FUND Budgeting

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Addressees March 2014 COUNTERING OVERSEAS THREATS Gaps in State Department Management of Security Training May Increase Risk to U.S.

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees September 2010 STUDENT LOANS Federal Web-based Tool on Private Loans Would Pose Implementation Challenges and May Be

Evaluation and Inspection Division Federal Bureau of Investigation s Integrity and Compliance Program November 2011 I-2012-001 EXECUTIVE DIGEST In June 2007, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) established

GAO United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Committees December 2012 MILITARY SPOUSE EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS DOD Can Improve Guidance and Performance Monitoring GAO-13-60 December

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT SERVICES June 30, 2016 Control Number ED-OIG/A04O0014 James W. Runcie Chief Operating Officer Federal Student Aid U.S. Department

U.S. Department of Education Office of Inspector General Five-Year Strategic Plan Fiscal Years 2014 2018 Promoting the efficiency, effectiveness, and integrity of the Department s programs and operations

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL AUDIT SERVICES March 24, 2015 Control Number ED-OIG/A05N0012 James W. Runcie Chief Operating Officer Federal Student Aid U.S. Department

GAO March 2011 United States Government Accountability Office Report to the Chairman, Subcommittee on Federal Financial Management, Government Information, Federal Services, and International Security,

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION An Improved Project Management Process Is Needed to Measure the Impact of Research Efforts on Tax Administration July 21, 2009 Reference Number: 2009-10-095

GAO United States General Accounting Office Report to the Subcommittee on Defense, Committee on Appropriations, House of Representatives September 2003 MILITARY EDUCATION DOD Needs to Enhance Performance

United States Government Accountability Office Report to Congressional Requesters March 2015 HOMELAND SECURITY ACQUISITIONS DHS Should Better Define Oversight Roles and Improve Program Reporting to Congress

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION Fiscal Year 2015 Statutory Review of Restrictions on Directly Contacting Taxpayers July 7, 2015 Reference Number: 2015-30-061 This report has cleared the

TREASURY INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR TAX ADMINISTRATION The Impact of the Frontline Leader Readiness Program on Succession Planning Should Be Determined March 15, 2011 Reference Number: 2011-10-015 This report